The UK's chief purse-strings-puller Philip Hammond has pledged 15 million premises will receive full-fibre broadband by 2025, in an apparent bid to boost Britain's fortunes post-Brexit.
But rather than invest money in such a scheme, like other governments in Europe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has devised something much, …

Re: 2033 to "Finish" the job??

Re: 2033 to "Finish" the job??

"I’m gonna have to call you up on that...

10Gbps for €50pcm??"

I think OP is mistaken

Swisscom

"By the end of April 2018 more than 3.3 million fixed network lines were running on fibre optic technologies. Overall, Swisscom has given over 3.95 million homes and offices ultra-fast broadband with more than 50 Mbit/s. More than 1.37 million homes enjoy upload and download speeds of up to 1 Gbit/s."

Re: In other news...

I'd be happy with a full VDSL2/2+ 80Mb/s speed, but a long phone line means I can't even get the full 40Megabits/s lower tier, and my upload speed is just 5.5Megabits/second :-(

Needless to say, there's nothing that can be done, as Openreach won't deploy a closer cabinet, so that's as good as it's likely to get. Although the exchange has been unbundled, there's no competition for the last mile, and there's no virgin media service in the area either.

Of course, you would, you've been conditioned to take whatever crumbs BT offer you.

Sounds like absolute heaven, compared to the obfuscated, legacy copper carcass network destined to become the long term 'norm' for rural Britain, where there are no 'market conditions', just an awful lot of long crackly copper/ aluminium BT lines.

FTTC?

Re: Paul

I feel for you Paul. There are 2 green cabinets on out housing estate and BT only chose to upgrade the further one to fibre so all my lines are limited to 30Mb down and ~5.5 up. No Virgin here either (stupid greedy cable company tried to extort money from thick as shit builders) so no other option for the last mile. I know a lot of people do a lot worse.

There is a magic money tree*

Not a big fan of Corbyn but we've got to realize that questions about how things "are going to be paid for in reality" are, at least to some extent, enthymematic, and the enthymeme they contain is, at least to some extent, false.

A national economy with its own central bank and a still decent national credit rating is not 'like a household budget' and the ingrained idea that it is, in my opinion, perhaps the worst legacy of the Thatcher era.

There are clearly some very good reasons for controlling the amount and type of government spending (a quick look at the litany of failures of command economies is instructive) but "where's the money going to come from?" isn't, as far as I can see, a very useful question. Better to ask, for instance, "will spending this money now be worth it, in terms of economic growth (or indeed some other social good)?"

* In fact there are two magic money trees: both the state (public sector), and the banks (private sector), can simply create money. I'm not saying whether the existence of these trees is good or bad, or which it is preferable to eat from: I'm just saying "there is no magic money tree" is, purely and simply, not actually true. Those reluctant to borrow should say: "we don't want to spend that amount of money on that issue, and here's why" and those who want to borrow should say: "we think this is a good investment and here's why" --- then we can have a proper debate and get away from this "sorry there's no money left" nonsense.

Re: There is a magic money tree*

@John H Woods

The problem is that even if "there is a magic money tree", old Corbyn has made so many promises to so many people that they'll get so many things that even your magic money trees would be unable to cope if Mr Corbyn was forced to put his money where his mouth is for every single one of his promises.

Mr Corbyn is a politician no better than any other. He sees an opportunity, or something the other side are "doing wrong", and he says "Labour will do this". Thus another hot air promise of spending more money appears out of his mouth, because "do this" is typically followed by "it will be free for them" or "we'll give them more money".

The man is quite frankly so desperate to get into power that he is resorting to promising the earth which he would be unable to deliver in reality.

Re: So...

Not absolutely necessarily, I think.

My personal situation is that I have moved to a rural village where there is next to nothing - just a communal WiFi tower that works when it damn well pleases. We are, however, going to get FTTH come next August and no, it's not a pipe dream. it's really happening.

Right now, Orange is laying the fibers and will control the backbone, but other operators are allowed to come in and manage the last mile. There are two available right now, one is obviously Orange, and the other is a local telecoms company that already manages connections elsewhere in the region. There may be more operators signing on shortly - or not.

In any case, if I were absolutely anti-Orange, I have a choice. I don't have to go to Orange to use that connection.

All new builds should be forced to have a fibre connection - period. How else can they drop pots by 2025 otherwise. But that would be nasty to the house builders who if they could get away with it would sell a broom cupboard as a place to live.

I'd also go as far as saying new builds should have solar panels, especially those so many million qs m warehouses, and whole building battery options for the domestic premises.

But engineers with clue mostly weren't in charge of the 'new' Berlin airport design and programme. For much of the lifetime of the programme, a US-trained MBA was at the top, and the programme was 'driven' by ambitious empire-builders. Should anyone be surprised at the (lack of) result?

There's lots more to read on the subject. It might even make an interesting article round here one day. It certainly needs to be more widely known.

Re: Rhetorical, I hope*

"*because the Germans get off their arses and do the work instead of just talking about it"

Deutsche Telekom were given a period where they didn't have to wholesale the service to other providers to give them time to make back their investment. It made the rollout of fibre financially viable. In the UK that's not the case.

I had dinner with some good Japanese friends in recent times, and a passing glance was given to the topic of home internet.

When I told them what the experience was like for your average Joe in the UK, it was just incomprehensible to them why people would put up with paying so much for so little.

Also, apparently line faults are rare in Japan and when they do happen, unlike in the UK where you have to practically get on your knees and beg BT to come in a reasonable timeframe, in Japan things get fixed somewhat quicker.

Market conditions

Because 100% Business Rates Relief for Fibre Infrastructure for 5 years from 1 April 2017 is creating just the right market conditions for encouraging long-term investment with a 20+-year payback, isn't it ?

Re: Market conditions

Re: Market conditions

Are these the same "market conditions" that forced me to have and pay for a faster service than I actually need, as happened last year with BT? I (we) had about 56 Mb down which was quite enough; BT offered 72 Mb at an increased cost, but after a phone call they agreed to my paying the same as previously and staying with 56 Mb.

Only weeks later an enforced price rise came along and put me on 76 Mb anyway. I was not amused.

So... if BT suddenly comes along with FTTP in our area will I be forced to have it in place of the current FTTC? If yes then what market forces are going to be available to me to resist? I suspect none; it will be FTTP or nothing, I suspect. More money, please; look at the bandwidth we're giving you. But I don't need the bandwidth. Shut up and pay up...

The "digital divide" risks widening, not narrowing, if advancing technology is enforced at increased cost, and users without shedloads of spare money start to wonder if they can afford to contnue having broadband at all.

Meanwhile in Straya, our backwards politicians lead by an investment banker that made his money by selling off his stake in ISP OzEmail, has basically sunk any hope of FTTP for at least the next decade and lumped the taxpayers with what is now known as "Malcolm's Terrible Mess".

Of course why would the pollies care, the taxpayer's are for it,l and after 8 years in office, they all get to retire on their yearly pay for the rest of their lives.

You could of course use a bit of "encouragement" by updating building regs to say all new build homes are equipped with FTTP. I know of at least 3 local housing developments that have been completed in the last 2 year that don't even have FTTC let alone FTTP.

The internet is such a huge part of our lives now that it needs to be taken into account at the planning stages of housing development, not an afterthought.